Quote:
"TRUE BELIEVERS, INTEGRITY, AND TRUTH": Everyone believes in something.
Even those who say, "I don't believe in anything," believe that they don't
believe anything. So, believing, at least while in human form, is inevitable.
BeiYin: You might be
right referring to average people, but I don't agree in generalizing that
much. From my own experience I can say, that there exist a state of mind,
where believing in something, whatever it might be, is not present and
where no personal need for any kind of belief exist. It is a simple but
clear awareness of oneself and all around. To get to this state it doesn't
need a concept like 'FF' or others are offering, it comes by itself throughout
the process of life. What indeed is needed, is taking responsibility for
oneself and so creating awareness to respond to whatever comes to someone...
(That's one reason because I respect the 'atheists'... even if their NO-beliefs
sometimes are as strong as the beliefs of other people, but they try at
least to maintain an open and responsible attitude to life, free of constructed
morality and other concepts...)
Comment: I'd love to
hear more of what you mean by "simple clear awareness of oneself and
all around" -- it may be one of few modes of awareness. Is it awareness
of oneself as an individual, or of oneself as The One, the only One there
is?
BeiYin: I don't know
anything about 'modes of awareness'. I just know that I am aware and that
there is no separation from my awareness. I might say: I am the awareness.
I am aware that I am. That's all and it is nothing special for me and it
is not dramatic at all, so why to make a fuzz out of it? It is kind of
natural and so it can be for everybody. The only difference might be, that
my awareness is not swallowed by identifications. So there are no beliefs,
they are not needed... About 'the only One there is' an atheist would say:
Is this a concept? What is it? Is it an experience? There is only my experience
of my awareness right now...
Comment:| You are a
bit vague here. Do you mean that it is a kind of awareness of The One,
The only One there is, while still maintaining an awareness of your individuality?
BeiYin:|| If there
is awareness of the One, (whatever this might be) then there is someone
who is aware of the One, but if there is only the One, then there is no
one left to be aware of something, just the One, so the individuality must
have gone, even if there is awareness. Yes I am vague in my expression,
but I think it is better to keep this subject out of the discussion circle
and come back to it, when we see that there are people really interested.
DL: When I am aware
there is definitely this feeling of self... but I expect that is not the
important part. The important part for me is that when I am aware I look
at the things within and around me as they are, for themselves. When I
am not so aware I often catch a glimpse of something, then go off to draw
a picture in my mind (meanwhile ignoring other things I might look at).
While I'm drawing the picture I form all sorts of responses and conclusions
not to the thing I have seen but to the picture I have drawn in my mind.
So this is the differentiating factor... that awareness connects me to
the things around me, to what I call reality... whereas lack of awareness
is categorized by a lot of thoughts that were merely inspired by something
I saw.
Quote: INTEGRITY Being
in "integrity" means that we act on our inner truth. Integrity acts like
an internal tuning fork vibrating whenever we hear truth. Strictly mental
arguments (logical though they may be) will not make the fork vibrate.
These strings of logic don't source from the heart. Sometimes, our beliefs
take us far from our integrity. When this happens, we become unhappy, because
lying keeps us in illusion. We feel separate from others, ourselves, and
God.
Comment: I like that.
BeiYin:| Yes, beautiful
words and in so far even true...
DL: I notice you [FF]
said act... in point of fact the activities that one partakes of, when
measured against the activities that one would rather partake of (whether
or not one knows of those) is the measure of integrity. Few people seem
to realize the spewing words is another kind of activity in and of itself.
Anyway I don't think one can talk about integrity as a short-term process,
I think it is is something that happens over long periods of time. Kind
of like gusts of wind can push a sailboat to and fro... but a strong steady
wind can be used to move the sailboat willfully.
FF: To stay in integrity,
our beliefs must be the same as our inner truth.
Comment: Almost impossible
to accomplish, due to the human conditioning.
BeiYin:| I would go
one step further and say: this has no real sense and is only said to impress
the innocent reader. And so it unmasks the 'beautiful words' as half truth.
DL: I think this is
oversimplification. Definitely the activities one partakes of should reflect
'inner truth' for someone who has integrity... but 'belief' is just
another activity one can partake of or ignore.
Quote: Aren't
"beliefs"
the same as "inner truth"? For some beings, they are; for others,
they are not. Those who grant their beliefs precedence over their inner
truth are "True Believers."
BeiYin:| What is said
in the quote is unclear. To be able to understand this, every used word
must be explained precisely. What are:
"beliefs", "inner truth",
"True
Believers"? Without knowing the exact meaning this writings are only
impressing or confusing.
DL: And this is one
of the fundamentals: people do NOT all agree to the same degree on definitions
of words. Words are a highly subjective phenomena. I know it is in vogue
to believe that different people view them the same way, but in my experience
this is just not so.
Comment: And some may
have both "inner truth" and modes of perceiving reality, which equals
beliefs.
BeiYin: *Integrity*
can only be the result of a personal process, it is not possible to gain
it through a concept or an attitude or behavior. Though it can be used
as a promise or a bait to trap people who are in need. Subjective truth
serves the personal purpose, the belief system and the needs of a person
are part of this... Mostly the 'inner truth' of a person turns around
those personal purposes and makes the 'fork' vibrating when this
'truth'
is touched or attacked and so the person reacts by defending him/herself...
DL: Exactly. Either
a person is ready and willing to decide for himself whether or not he is
ready for true integrity, or he is not. But there needs to be caution here;
it is very much a part of the human condition to presume nice things about
oneself even when they aren't true. A person of integrity will probably
be examining his activities carefully to see how they line up with his
thoughts... and will solve his own problems in so doing it. This is not
a gift that can be given; when a person is ready he will reach for it himself.
BeiYin: ...Beliefs
doesn't make a person unhappy, as you say, and *integrity* has nothing
to do with it. What makes a person
'unhappy' is the discrepancy
between *reality* and her/his beliefs and the difficulty or impossibility
to live it, that means, to bring those beliefs and concepts into daily
life. So I guess you are adding another possibility for being unhappy,
by offering your concept of 'integrity' and other supplementary and auxiliaries...
Comment: Indeed, the
belief system is part of the human conditioning, part of what we actually
are, of our psychological makeup. A degree if integrity may be obtained
-- actually, each and every human being, or many human beings, have some
degree of integrity. Yet, as long as one is given to the human conditioning,
one cannot act in integrity all the time.
DL: This comes back
to what I said about awareness. When I lack awareness and am drawing pretty
pictures in my mind, I often find myself drifting to and from or even in
circles. I lack integrity during such moments... but when I become more
aware later on I start acting more in line with what is actually happening
around me.
BeiYin: Yes and when
it happens is the action authentic? And not just the result of a belief?
(The pressure of fear of being punished for not fulfilling a given law,
for example.) It doesn't look like that there are 'many human beings with
integrity' not even with some degree of it. Otherwise the world would look
different...
DL: What is this preoccupation
with needing to know when others or even oneself is being authentic? The
basic problem I see with that is that you have to pull out the mental map,
draw some more pretty pictures to validate or invalidate the objective
claim about authenticity. But as I have mentioned, drawing those pictures
is what I do when I am unaware... so if I am going to go doing that I am
going to go reinforcing my lack of awareness.
Comment: Though all
humans are subjects to the human conditioning, we all are being given free
will as well. Each and every human acts at times out of the conditioning
and at other times out of one's soul, or one's higher faculties.
BeiYin: About 'free
will' we will need to discuss later on. I don't know what you mean by 'soul'.
The 'higher faculties' might be part of conditionings...
In most cases the 'inner truth' of a person
turns around those personal purposes and makes the 'fork' vibrating
when this 'truth' is touched or attacked and so the person must
defend him/herself. Beliefs doesn't make a person unhappy, as FF says,
and *integrity* has nothing to do with it.
Comment: Agreed,
yet, there are good chances that when acting in integrity a person will
be more in acceptance of oneself, thus, one's feelings may improve as well.
DL: I think so. The
more integrity I can summon up at any given time the less I have to depend
on the whims of others to act in my favor rather than against me. And what
others do is for the most part just that: acting on whims.
BeiYin: If it is real
integrity, yes, but if acting is the result of a concept which is adapted,
than there will be no more acceptance and feelings will not improve. It
is just lying to oneself and others.
Comment: Indeed, one
of the things we all have to be intent upon is distinguishing the real
from our various concepts...
BeiYin: Yes, but what
is the 'real'? Now, is it another concept? People are identified
with their concepts, that makes them real for them. So there is nothing
else what could be more real, so they will need to adopt another concept
to be able to distinguish? I guess that's another game, they are turning
around themselves because this is the only reality they know: their thoughts,
their feelings, their body and altogether the pain and suffering which
mostly results from it and of course also the pleasure which sometimes
they can achieve. How can people distinguish from what? There does not
exist another reality which could give a point of reference. There are
the 'personalities' with their experiences, that's their reality and there
are their beliefs. That's what they are. How can they distinguish? They
first have to pass a state of limbo where they give space to something
apart of the old. (You didn't like the "formula" (click
here: Poems) but their I said it quite clear and vividly.)
DL: Exactly. Many people
are so stuck in relating to things in i the old way that they are accustomed
to that even if you tell them 'forget that old stuff and try something
new' they will relate to THAT statement in and old way they are accustomed
to. So it is really up to the other person to make a move; all the help
in the world is to no avail if they aren't ready to accept that help.
Comment: ... As much
as it is wise to be careful of empty words and notions, real integrity
is highly valued in my eyes.
BeiYin: There seems
to be a different how we see it: If people using words, that means that
they express themselves, then these words are never empty. Words might
be used to hide behind them, so they seemed to be empty. But when we look
behind the meaning or emptiness of words, then we can see the fear or desperation,
or the longing for love or whatever... So words are never empty. 'To
be carefully of empty words' could mean, that we should learn to express
ourselves more direct. In the first place we should express our feelings,
that would mean that first we need to allow our reactions to come out,
then to accept them as a visible sign of our structure which works from
the unknown background of each person. etc.etc.
DL: And a lot of that
is information you have to infer for yourself. What it amounts to is to
say nothing of objective reality, only to indicate your personal preferences
where relating to others is concerned.
BeiYin: What makes
people
'unhappy' is the discrepancy between *reality* and their
beliefs and the difficulty or impossibility to live and bring into daily
life those beliefs and concepts.
Comment: This is one
of reasons for being unhappy.
BeiYin: The main reason
of daily life unhappiness I would say.
Comment: There are
many other reasons, like being not accepted and unloved by others, for
instance.
BeiYin: Yes, but the
main reason is the same: the discrepancy between reality and what this
person wants, producing unhappiness... If I am sovereign then I don't need
to be accepted and if I really love, then I don't depend on love of others.
If there is a need, than there is dependency. If I depend on others, then
I will be disappointed and I will suffer and be unhappy... So to protect
themselves people close up, they express themselves less and their words
seems to be even more empty...
Comment: The core reason
that all relativity, life included, is constructed of the pairs of opposites.
DL: Clearly, if I maintain
the postulate 'happy' then the concept 'sad' comes up so that I
have some way of differentiating what is happy. But if I maintain no concepts
about happy, does the thing sad actually have to exist?
BeiYin: Sorry, but
this sounds as confusing and unrealistic as FF's phrases. What can be done
with this information to help the suffering 'human fellow being'?
I can't see it like this. Life is not 'constructed'. The opposites
are the result of the reacting system. And why the individual system reacts
this way depends on the personal background, that...>
Comment: Well, it may
be seen as an empty phrase and it may be the actual reality of the matter
-- that everything in the relative, phenomenal existence is constructed
of the pairs of opposites. Anyone may accept my view as much as not accept
it -- no need that everyone will agree with everything everyone else is
saying...
BeiYin: One thing because
I am not as happy as I could be is that there is a huge need for information
how to get out of suffering. And I am concerned about this and have to
make the experience that it is so difficult to transmit something to people,
specially if it has to do with 'truth', that several times I gave
up. So if I have made another attempt now with the Internet, it is out
of my serious effort for helping others or as you say: the fellow human
beings. As a result of trying all my life I got a key that can be used
by everybody, so I will go on trying to transmit information about it...
So it is important that people understand what I am saying...
DL: Well, you start
by presuming you should be happy rather than by accepting what you are.
That leads to trying to go somewhere you aren't. Furthermore is the presumption
itself about happiness actually valid, or is it merely another part of
the human conditioning process? Words don't exist in a void either... when
they aren't being used as pure decoration there is supposed to be some
sort of relationship between words and activities or experiences. But if
someone hasn't experienced the things you know of as the key... then you
saying the words meaning the key to them is just an empty concept in their
mind; they don't have the same experience as you do as to what the words
mean. So in general the only people who can understand your key are the
ones who have already taken the first step out of normal conditioning.
Although it might be an important thing for them to see that someone has
gone ahead of them... For the masses, the people who have not taken the
first step on their own... there is nothing you really can do. Oh you can
carry them around until you get sick of it, but it won't help... There
is a way to deal with the situation but it is not guaranteed to work for
all people. At some point you will probably realize the futility of trying
to do for others what they can only do for themselves...
BeiYin: ... is the
structure build up (here you could say 'constructed') by life experience.
Which is the result of all the reactions of this individual structure and
so resulting new reactions, confirming personality, producing unhappiness
etc.etc.etc.
Comment: Thus, pain
and pleasure, happiness and unhappiness will always be there.
BeiYin: You are talking
about yourself or human potential in general? If it is a statement about
the possibilities of human individuals in general, then I can't agree.
Al these reactions as suffering, pleasure, happiness and unhappiness will
be experienced as long there are goals and wishes, connected with imaginations,
concepts, fantasies, etc. Because the individual is identified with all
this and has invested with his/her concepts most of their energy to fulfill
these needs and then being confronted with (daily) reality which then brings
success or not and so with it reactions of happiness or unhappiness...
There is an ending of these reactions. Because there is a state...
DL: All of this is
in the realm of sensation. I know it is in vogue to think one must act
according to the sensations one gets... but one CAN go independent from
sensation if one wants.
Comment: Your [BY's]
theory may be valid only upon an experience of what you state. Now, is
it your experience, or only a theory? If it is your experience, please
elaborate the conditions that may make one happy all the time.
BeiYin: To be happy
all the time is the dream of the average consumer in this society, that's
not what I am talking about. Indeed there is an ending of suffering produced
by reactions of the individual. I know this from my own experience and
it is not an occasional or temporary happening, it is a more or less permanent
state, though I would call it a 'transparent state' and indeed I am living
it. When I see all the suffering around me, then I feel that I want to
do something about it and I feel that I am responsible to share my knowledge
with my 'human fellow beings'. So I can't say that I succeeded with this
attempt, even I have tried for the last 20 years, but I learned a lot about
reality of human nature in this time and maybe now has come the moment
to share what I have learned... I have written a book about all this. It
is written in German (click here Buch: Bezug
zum Sein)
Comment: In the light of
my own experience, such a situation is impossible to attain, by any individual,
due to the basic nature of reality.
DL: Notice you said 'in
the light of my own experience'. I will refer you to the above discussion
about people who are so convinced that their experience is the limit to
things... and then say in MY experience it is quite possible to attain
a situation wherein one feels the feelings associated with happiness and
maintain that situation for indefinite periods of time. However it may
not be the wisest thing to try to force such a situation on oneself.
BeiYin: I don't know
what you mean by 'basic nature of reality'... Why is it, that your
experience differs in this point?
Comment: Suffering
may be eliminated, but being free from suffering doesn't mean being happy
all the time.
BeiYin: I didn't say
this. And I haven't said that someone must be happy all the time, not even
happy at all...
JP: I know what you
mean here. It depends how you define happy I suppose. Life exists on some
kind of straight line; not up or down. When that kind of zig zagging between
the straight sine wave ceases, things are as they are. And nothing is really
a "happy" smily happy, and things are much "better" than simply being free
of suffering. And that state isn't a mediocre or flat experience; sounds
like this is the state that Bei-Yin describes here.
Comment: When one is
connected to all other humans, when there is even one other human in pain,
complete happiness cannot be there -- in the face of others' pains.
DL: So it is impossible
for me to enjoy it when you are in pain? But I thought some people liked
that!
BeiYin: ...of being
where
'personality' is *transformed* and so not anymore identified
with beliefs, imaginations, concepts, etc. and not bound to the world of
consuming, included spiritual, religious and all other concepts. So there
can't be produced any kind of extreme happenings, reactions like happiness
or unhappiness. If you own 100 million $, you wouldn't be unhappy to loose
one $? And you wouldn't be happy just finding a dirty $ in the street.
Right?
Comment: Again, theory,
or experience?
BeiYin: Again: I am
living it and it works on the practical level of daily life. Well, I didn't
need to go through the heavy thing to make 100 million $ to experience
that this gives a kind of quietness but doesn't make really happy. Though
even I have quietness and I feel 'light', I can't say, that I am constantly
happy, I can even say that there is no need for this kind of happiness
at all... And sometimes, there is something even more quiet and lighter,
but this is not a feeling, it is just me without being identified with
any feeling. It is more that *I am* the quietness and the light, there
is no separation and as I said before: it is not a happening. It is so
transparent that there is no beginning and no end... There is no one who
is separated from awareness. There is no 'higher Self', there is
just my self. So that's another reason because I don't like so much the
use of these words. I can't describe it better. About all this I am writing
the first time because you triggered it, but still I can't see much sense
in it. What can another person do with it? I guess nothing or maybe can
get confirmation for her or his concept. I see myself as a normal person
and not different from other people. I should try to write a poem about
it, that might say it better. I have written one in Spanish, (click
Poema). But you know all that! And you know also, that this is
not based on reactions... Of course Donald Duck the multimillionaire is
angry when he looses 5 Cent and he is dancing out of joy when he finds
a dirty Dollar. But we are not McDonald Ducks, aren't we?
Comment: A state of
being happy all the time is impossible to attain. Even at enlightenment
a person is not happy all the time, though there is nothing one lacks.
DL: Again I would caution
you to distinguish what 'happiness' might be from the sensations
you associate with happiness. The sensations ARE attainable... but whether
there is anything left ot be happy/sad or what would cause it to be happy/sad
is another issue entirely.
BeiYin: With all my
respect: How do you know? Are you enlightened?
It should be clear now, that I am
not talking about being happy or not and that it is because of not being
identified with reactions especially when they are unconscious or half-conscious...
Comment: Being enlightened
means being one with the Supreme Self constantly, all the time. In this
definition, I'm not enlightened, yet, I've experienced this state long
enough to know about it and what it means.
BeiYin: What does it
mean?
DL: I would agree you
have been SOMEWHERE nice, and I would agree that you like it, but I would
ask you how you know where the place you have been fits into some hypothetical
objective viewpoint. Have you experienced a lot of such places, that you
can get some idea of how such places relate to each other and to life in
general?
BeiYin: I can accept
that. It is just that I can see how many misinterpretations of the word
'Supreme
Self' or 'Higher Self' have come along with it since the time
when Paul Brunton's book was published (I don't know the English title,
must be 'The way to the Self' or similar) In deed it is not possible
to understand it. As I said: Only an artist can understand what art really
is. So we know that people love to make concepts about every thing they
have not realized and they do it also with
'Self', up to the ridiculous
extent, and this I have heard with my own ears, that Shirley McLain described
on a stage in a weekend seminar in Los Angeles, that she met the higher
Self in her vision and he was a beautiful young man with blond hair!
BeiYin: Isn't it sad
that famous people are using their popularity to transmit such an innocent
nonsense? But is this nonsense so different of other concepts?! I would
say that every concept has the same effect: It separates from reality,
that means from the direct experience of oneself...
DL: Be careful with
nonsense. Often it is more truthful than the normal sane approach...
Comment: The human
suffering can be eliminated, which is what The Third Circle speaks about,
yet, getting out of suffering does not mean being happy all the time.
BeiYin: 'To eliminate
suffering' sounds violent. I don't know what the 'Third Circle'
is, I will have a look in your web side...
BeiYin: If you ask me,
I would say yes, I have found a practical way.
Comment: Are you willing
to share it? If it's actually working, it's something humanity didn't know
so far.
BeiYin: Yes I will.
We will find the right way to do so.
DL: I hope you do.
My way is antiquated and very painful for those who live through it...
and not guaranteed to work either.
BeiYin: So why do you
say that for enlightenment it is necessary to enunciate one's individuality?
Comment: The whole
"phenomena" of the infinite, absolute Supreme Self and of enlightenment
are beyond the mind and beyond the ability to comprehend them, even by
the mind of the enlightened...
BeiYin:
In deed. But why then you are talking about it at all?
Comment: ... Anyhow
it is *you*, whatever that *you* may be, which may be identified with being
individual, or, renounce your identification with individuality and by
doing so realize your true identity as The One, or the Supreme Self...
BeiYin: Now, there
seems to be no doubt, that this is a concept: to 'renounce' my individuality
to realize my
'true identity as the Supreme Self'?! I admit this
is a very sophisticated concept, but still a concept, which brings with
it the identification and the 'fighting for the omelet' (Click
Formula of Life itself) with all
its multiples games around it. So people might be busy for the next 20
years or longer. How is it possible to 'renounce identification with
individuality'? This must be a highly sophisticated trick! It seems
to me, that this is a promise which can't be fulfilled. Or have you the
proof that it works and can be realized soon? Are you the proof yourself?
If I don't ask this now, the reader of this discussion circle will do it.
(As we dare to represent ourselves in public, we will be examined up to
the bones!)
Comment:
...This
is a reality beyond words and beyond the understanding of the mind. All
words used here are only for want of better words.
BeiYin: So someone
could call these words 'empty words', - to describe a hopeful concept which
promises the fullness...
Comment: Well, some
can talk about things they know nothing about, and some others may talk
about the same things out of knowledge based on their own experience. In
my view, what counts is the place the person talking is coming from, not
the words or phrases being used...
BeiYin: I suppose you
are talking out of knowledge. What counts in my view is not the place a
person is coming from, but the place where the person is in this very moment.
That means: How a person is expressing him/herself (it counts a lot which
words and phrases are used), what the actual position is, the behavior,
the way how a person responds to another person, what the person hides,
how a person defends her/himself, what are the irritable and vulnerable
spots of this person, etc.etc.
Comment: ... If you
have aversion to the word enlightenment, I'm perfectly willing to drop
the subject.
BeiYin: I have no aversion
to the word. I have a aversion how the word is used by people, specially
by so called 'gurus'. For example in >alt.conciousness.4th-way<
where everybody seems to be a master and talking about 'enlightenment'...
I haven't met a person, who were using these words as 'self-expression'.
I met several 'gurus' but all were describing a concept. That's
also the reason because I hardly use the words 'god' and 'love'.
Sometimes I don't want to talk at all, because of the same reason. Like
an artist who is tired of talking with decorators and businessmen. You
are more like the artist, so you will not feel offended. I am right or
wrong?
DL: I know what you
mean. Everything I say sounds sane to me, yet I am forever being misjudged
by people who know the correct keywords to say.
JP: ...like BeiYin
I have a "problem" the word 'enlightenment', it's not a word I ever really
use. To me using that word is projecting a goal into the future, with some
imagined reward or state. And so the assumption is made that one is going
to have to do something to attain the goal. And essentially, this word
has little to do with what is happening *now*. But I do think we can know
who we are and "wake up", but the word 'enlightenment' seems to make it
into a special exclusive state, when in my view all people should already
know who they are and be "awake." Then again, we can't know the full implications
of knowing who we are or of being awake, unless we are that way. Personally,
I know that it is possible to know who I am, firstly because I don't know
who I am. And I have glimpsed "knowing who I am". And I know I am asleep,
because I have known what it is like to be awake. But even these things
I really can't direct myself towards; as far as I'm concerned whatever
happens, happens. It's not my concern to "worry" about what happens in
the future, just do all I can in the present.
Comment: ...Yet, in
such a case you will have to define what you mean by self-realisation.
It seems to me you are talking, at times, about the same thing, only using
different words. For me the reality is what counts, not so much the words
used...
JP: ...Just thinking
about the purpose of any discussion like this. One "problem" there may
be is that when I'm reading this I generally "agree" with Bei-Yin's words
(and much of White Eagle's), and in fact I'm surprised about the similarities
between his view and mine. But if I "agree" with everything he says and
let it stand; then I have nothing to say. There can be an attitude of mine
that everything he is saying is a certain perspective or description of
reality for him, and so there's nothing for me to say about that. The truth
is the truth, can't argue about the truth because it is as it is, and I
can't argue about Bei-Yin's perceptions of it because that is just his
perception of it. But I think the point in a discussion like this is to
just clarify or get the "best" or most accurate descriptions, or to see
if we can provoke or allow new or clearer perceptions of the "truth" as
it were.
BeiYin: (Back to the
quoted article) So I guess FF is adding another possibility for being unhappy
to all the other existing ones by offering the concept of
'integrity'
and
other supplementaries and auxiliaries...
WE: Integrity doesn't
have to add possibility for unhappiness, as much as it doesn't have to
add a possibility for happiness.
BeiYin: *Integrity*
not, because it is the result of a realized state of being, but a concept
does add these possibilities, because it causes artificial behavior, rigidity,
closeness, defense, etc. and will be confronted by the inner reality of
the individual and the outside reality as well...
Comment: We seem to
agree on the difference between the real thing and an empty notion of it.
I was talking about real integrity. Anyhow, many people act, at times,
out of integrity, even before attaining full Self-realisation, which is
synonym to enlightenment. Acting in integrity may add to one feeling OK
about oneself, the concept of integrity, without acting upon it, or when
mistakenly expecting to act this way all the time may indeed add disappointments
and frustrations.
BeiYin: (Back to FF
article) FF is right by stating, that lying keeps people in illusion and
that this keeps them in separation. -
Comment: Well, people
are in illusion anyhow, both when lying and when speaking truthfully ...
how many of us actually perceive reality as-it-is?
JP:
You make the assumption that reality is as it is! Though I know what you
mean by that. I am someone who mostly sees things as they are; but I am
in a very unnatural state that precludes much more than just a perception
of things as they are, and it doesn't go very "deep."
BeiYin: (Back to FF
article) It is possible to be real honest and to realize that the personality
keeps itself together by defending this fragile illusion which is a composition
of lies... But this possibility to get through is rarely practiced. (I
am not judging, it is what it is, of course with all its negative results...)
Quote: THE GROWTH OF
INTEGRITY As we grow in spiritual awareness and veils lift, behavior that
once worked for us becomes inappropriate.
Comment: Inappropriate
by what standards?
DL: He's probably talking
in terms of what one needs to do to continue.
BeiYin: (to FF) Is
this a promise to those who accept the proposal and believe in it?
DL: Probably not, I
would guess. One of the essential steps seems to be to learn the difference
between belief and lack of belief.
FF: Our actions are
not genuine.
BeiYin: Of course the
actions of a normal person are not genuine, to be genuine only can be the
result of an individual process...
Comment: A definition
by FF of what is meant by acting genuinely is called for. Without explaining,
or showing what FF means it's impossible to refer to it.
BeiYin: FF does not
give any explanation. I think it is worth to find one. But I suppose FF
is not interested to give details. His words and impressing phrases might
serve as a bait to attract innocent seeker.
FF: When we act out
these old behavior patterns (usually out of habit), we notice that we are
not in integrity.
Comment: Have you found
a way to breakthrough all human conditioning, all behavior patterns permanently?
Have you accomplished absolute freedom? If you speak of your experience,
that's one thing, and I'm eager to hear about it. If it is only a theory,
- my experience proves that attaining absolute freedom from all conditioning
is impossible -- that is, prior to attaining enlightenment. And attaining
enlightenment means complete renunciation of one's individuality...
BeiYin: What's in the
quote looks pretty much like theory and is part of a concept which is offed...
But how can you have an experience about something you could not attain?
Because of not having the experience, you can't come to the conclusion
that it is impossible! Seems like because you couldn't reach the grapes,
so they doesn't exist. You are not logical. As you haven't attained freedom,
as you say, so that means that you are not enlightened. If you are not
enlightened you can't make a statement about it. You might have looked
through the keyhole, so your view was narrow... and now your statements
are still conditioned.
Comment: As I said
earlier, though I'm not there all the time, I've been there long enough
to know what it's like.
BeiYin: If you want
to discuss about 'enlightenment' then we should keep it out of this circle,
because I think it is too far out of the practical level. (no chicken,
no egg = no omelet) But if there is somebody else interested, OK, we can
try to deepen this subject...
BeiYin: (Back to quote)
How should these old behavior patterns be acted out? Behavior patterns
are defended with teeth and clutches by all the individuals, they notice
it and feel attacked and as a victim, when they can not live their
'way
of life' by interference owing to circumstances.
DL: So what is wrong
with letting them live with their clutter?
FF: This behavior creates
instant karma.
Comment: Is there an
action which doesn't create Karma? If yes, what action and how does it
work?
BeiYin: I would say
it is the action of an enlightened individual!
(Back to quote) 'Karma'? You are using
it like a big stick in the background, which will hit if somebody will
not have taken over your concept.
FF: We become vulnerable
to - and even invite - attack.
BeiYin: People indeed
are vulnerable, because reality is often too much in contra of individual
'truth'
and it is difficult to manipulate other people and the reality...
FF: We must defend
our illusions.
BeiYin: Exactly! That's
what everyone does most of the time, that's the main reason of suffering
all over the place, because 'illusions' are connected with 'personality'...
FF: Other beings sense
the discordant vibrations and take a poke at them. - At some level, everyone
knows we are lying.
BeiYin: Yes, this is
called *unconscious*. That is the game: to poke on others and so to strengthen
the own position.
FF: What can we do
when we step from integrity?
BeiYin: You mean from
the
'concept of integrity'. That will happen every moment and so
you might need to close up not to be open to influences which could interfere
with your concept. You are only 'open' to what confirms your concept...
FF: A common response
is to feel guilty.
BeiYin: Right, this
is a common way to hold on one's identity and personality.
FF: Guilt is a third-
and fourth dimensional affair - a response of the emotional body.
BeiYin: Wow, this sounds
great, impressive! I guess nobody will understand it.
FF: We feel bad about
our behavior.
BeiYinb: Rarely people
feel bad about their behavior, even if it is the worst possible. As result
for example the destruction of health of each individual and final the
destruction of the planet Earth. They feel bad (and react) if their beloved
behavior is put in question by someone. (They will ignore an intruder and
if this is not possible, probably they will kill him.)
FF: Brooding over our
acts, however, isn't practical if we are to live miraculous lives.
Comment: What do you
mean by living miraculously? You may have a valid answer, yet, without
having a valid answer it sounds to me like a "New Age" empty phraseology.
BeiYin: We live! That's
miraculous. Whatever we do, how much foolish we are, whatever mistakes
on whatever level we commit, - we live! As long as we are conscious about
ourselves and this does not necessarily need a healthy body or mind or
feelings, we live! That's the miracle! To use it as part of a concept,
is a trick to mix truth with lies, I can't agree with the way FF is using
'miraculous'.
FF: An alternative response
is to use guilt as an indicator. It signals that we have side-stepped.
We then take appropriate steps to realign ourselves with our new picture
of truth.
BeiYin: That's the
old story of feeling guilty being a sinner... 2000 years of manipulation...
Comment: Indeed, all
people feel guilty, at times, all people feel that they are right, at times.
FF: "OUTSIDE AUTHORITY"
A True Believer has found an outside authority to tell them what is true.
We've all been True Believers at some point. The outside authority could
be a teacher or guru, a philosophical system, a book, a channeled entity,
a diet, a religion, a science of any kind, or a political system.
BeiYin: (To FF) Or
your proposal. - Indeed it is the whole system to which we are engaged.
FF: Not everyone who
is dedicated to a cause or belief is a True Believer, though. Some beings
may serve a particular cause gracefully and sincerely.
Comment: What is a
"True Believer" and what distinguish such a person from a "non-true believer"?
BeiYin: (To FF) That
is: Their willingness is used by the system or particularly by an interested
group. (Which might enclose you and your concept.)
Comment: Indeed, an
interested group is also the whole of humanity with the common perception
of reality into which we are born.
FF: These individuals
are positive, evolutionary forces.
Comment: Please define
positive and negative, evolutionary and non evolutionary, and please state
by which standards something is considered as positive, or negative, etc.
Without such definition and statement it is but empty phraseology.
BeiYin: (To FF) Are
those people you are talking about, not bound in the system of illusion,
lies, manipulation, defense etc.?
FF: If you look closely,
you will find that love motivates these people, not their beliefs.
Comment: What people?
I need to meet such people in order to watch closely ...
BeiYin: It is good
that in now days people are more carefully accepting beautiful words. So
they will not swallow that easy those big words...
Comment: Well, at least
some people are more careful ...
Beiyin: Yes, but also
more afraid, so more closed up, even then maybe a bit more aware...
FF: Love is life, beliefs
are ideas. Unlike True Believers, these wise people won't try to manipulate
you to make you change.
BeiYin: Where are these
wise people? You are talking about yourself who has written this? There
is a lot of manipulation in it, playing with conceptions of words, pushing
buttons of peoples needs etc.
Quote: BEHAVIOR. - If
we are True Believers, we will accept (and often, preach), 100% of the
group's rhetoric. We agree to believe those parts of the dogma that we
"sort of know" aren't true for us. On faith, we will overlook and even
defend these inconsistencies.
Avid True Believers can be
defensive or offensive. We can display arrogant, paranoid, or anal retentive
behavior. We can become unpleasant or even dangerous. (In groups, we can
start wars.) Supporting a lie, we are easy to anger and quick to strike.
To avoid this pitfall, remember that *all* beliefs (/dogmas/pictures of
reality) are incomplete and relative. All are biased. Even if we combined
all beliefs in the universe, these limitations would still apply.
BeiYin: So it is.
Quote: THE TRUTH True
Believers are lovers of Truth.
Comment: And what is
this Truth? Do you actually know it, or do you have a belief about it?
Suppose someone does love the absolute truth, does this love make this
one actually know this absolute truth? Does this love make someone drop
all beliefs (which include all concepts about reality and the actual perception
of reality)?
BeiYin: It seems to
me, that believers are lovers of their own truth and this is what they
defend. A 'true believer' is obviously somebody who is true to that what
he/she believes, what could mean, that this person defends him/herself
stronger than an average person, whose belief system is more flexible.
FF: For them, living
in a human body isn't easy.
BY: There is only one
body and this one is human and this is the best we have. I guess this is
much easier than to live as a human in an animal body, or not? <|;-{)>
If there is not enough appreciation for the body then because of a concept
which suggest something better, but this only can be an idea which gives
an alternative identification and separates the person from reality and
an important part of it is without any doubt the *body*.
FF: As an analogy, let's
say that the Truth travels at the speed of light. We are in human bodies
- vehicles equivalent to a 1968 Volkswagen Mini-Bus. The planetary consciousness
didn't design these vehicles to reach the speed of light.
BY: You are putting
up an untouchable authority and call it 'planetary consciousness', which
makes it sound very impressionable. I refuse your authority and I prefer
to walk. I don't need any speedy vehicle to reach *truth*. Indeed, there
is no where to go, the *truth* is where *I am*.
Beiyin: What about
the 'Supreme Self'? People will automatically see an authority in
it if they don't have the experience what it really is.
FF: Truth exists as
the union of all spirits in this Universe: *Truth is a living entity.*
Comment: Any living
entity is relative, thus, no living entity can be the Ultimate Truth. The
Ultimate Truth is absolute, transcendent, beyond all relativity, beyond
all concepts and beyond all entities. In other words, the Ultimate Truth
is life itself, but not any particular living entity, or, it is everything
that exist, including all living entities and everything else which is
not an entity.
BeiYin: I guess this
is well said, though hard to understand...
(To FF) Whatever 'truth' might be, as
long, as it is not a living experience of the individual, it is part of
a concept which will serve to fabricate 'true believers' and to
give them the tool to go on in their believe and to convince other people
to join...
FF: In Roman Catholic
terms, this entity is The Holy Spirit.
BeiYin: Whatever terms,
it is still a concept. You can build big and very impressive buildings
around it. This all is men made and serves the purpose of personality,
it is far from spirituality, spirit or whatever mystical words you will
find or invent.
FF: As humans, the Holy
Spirit can move through us.
Beiyin: That's part
of a concept. You make a separation between spirit and humans. This is
not *truth*. There is in deed no separation. The separation is made by
people, giving concepts and mixing *truth* with personal needs.
FF: We, however, can
never speak the Truth.
BeiYin: If we speak
out our personal truth and we express ourselves with responsibility, responding
to others and the world, enclosing our own needs, than this should be enough
and it would be better to stay with it in all its consequence.
FF: Whenever we speak,
we must use words.
BeiYin: We can use
words but we don't 'must use words'. We can 'speak' by *expressing*
ourselves, there are many ways, by doing or not doing. We express ourselves
by *being*... expressing with our face, our eyes, our hands, the whole
body, with everything we *are*. We express ourselves how we respond to
others... All this talks clearer than often words can do it.
JP: But words are all
we have to express this kind of material. In other words(!) it would very
difficult to get the same kind of precision by miming or dancing about
these issues! We're basically dealing with the mind and the verbal level
here over the internet, and what happens on that level seems to profoundly
affect all the other levels of a person.
FF: Words form pictures,
and through these pictures we share our (biased) opinions about reality.
*The very act of speaking prevents us from expressing the Truth.*
Comment: Yet you write
about the Truth with words, and you refer to the Truth as being something
other then my own experience ...
BeiYinb: There, where
is no *truth*, it can't be expressed. Words can be vehicles for *truth*.
They can, due to their limitation, be misused, but this mostly is the limitation
of the one who receives the words. Everybody is expressing the truth he/she
represents. There is no other truth right now.
We only can receive the *truth* from outside
which we are reflecting from our own truth...
Comment: Well, at times
truth is being perceived from the inside ...
BeiYin: Right. But
this inside is also outside from been seen even from more inside. ;-)
FF: Language is dualistic,
the Truth is not. Being human, then, leaves us only with opinions.
Comment: Well, according
to your own words, which I don't agree with, if you are human than all
you may have are opinions, no actual knowledge of what you call "the Truth"
... Thus, all you talk about are your opinions, nothing you know for a
fact ...
Beiyin: Language is
not dualistic, but people are. And as language is used mostly by dualistic
people it looks like, there is no other use possible. (Chinese is not a
dualistic language, but a dualistic person will use it in a dualistic way...)
Isn't poetry the language which comes near to a non dualistic expression?
At least that's what I am trying to do in my poetry.
FF: Because of our inability
to grasp this elusive (yet all encompassing) entity, many settle into systems
that provide a decent substitute. (They become True Believers.)
Comment: If you cannot
grasp this elusive entity, why talk about it? ...Or do you claim that you
grasp what no other human can? ...
BeiYin: You can't say
'no
other human' because you don't know all of them! - Maybe FF is claiming
it, let's wait for his responds.- What it looks to me FF wants to 'sell'
a concept and this always is connected with giving hope. The hope to get
what is promised... Isn't this the background of all beliefs?
Comment: Yes, I've
noticed they were selling hopes, only, what they say just cannot be --
either there is something no human can know (like what they said) -- in
such a case they themselves, as humans, don't know it, they utter words
about something they themselves declare they cannot know...
JP: Often enough the
problem is that if you don't communicate in a way that at least allows
beliefs, then there is nothing to say or you can't say anything that people
who do "believe" beliefs will be able to grasp. This is something I have
to deal with in my writing. A belief can be used temporarily as a tool
in the knowledge that that is all it is. So you can pick it up and use
it and see what you can do with it and then drop it. Yet I think ultimately
there is a point where you don't need to pick up new beliefs at all, where
you can perceive clear "what is really the case" entirely free of them.
I liken belief systems to different glasses you can pick up and see reality
through. Even what I am saying here appears as a belief, but I don't believe
it!
Beiyin: (Back to FF)
A 'true believer' has taken a substitute, that's what is suggested?
FF: Some prefer this
alternative, rather than to live with the certainty that we are all equal
in our uncertainty.
Beiyin: That's it.
But now you call the substitute an 'alternative'? And that because
it seems to be impossible to live in uncertainty?
JP: Or you could even
forget about both of them; certainty or uncertainty. No question = no answer.
Remove the idea of there being a question and you can't be uncertain about
an answer! Both of them are unnecessary "strategies." Or to say this is
another way, uncertainty doesn't have to be a dilemma or a problem, so
it doesn't have to expressed as uncertainty!
FF: Depending on your
relationship to your pictures of reality, you find this information to
be liberating, confronting, wrong, or an opinion.
BeiYin: The relationship
is mainly based completely on identification and you are not providing
any danger by touching it seriously. People normally select what fits to
them so it is confirming their state of being they are used to and what
they try to keep.
Quote: "THE FACTS" Facts
are opinions that one or more people think are true. All facts are relative
in relation to dimension, time, and philosophical persuasion. For example,
look at a chair. Some say: "That's a chair and that's a fact." This fact
is relative to time, because fifty years ago, the components were trees.
Maybe fifty years from now, if fire destroyed it, it would be ashes. This
fact is relative to dimension, because on, say, the tenth dimension, a
chair is not a chair. It represents a unified fragment of the whole universe.
Beiyin: First tell
in beautiful words the 'truth' or something innocent people can
swallow as truth, so get their trust, then brainwash, then implant the
new concept... These old tricks will not work anymore, people start to
be aware of manipulations which are done by all kind of salesman on all
levels.
Beiyin: I prefer to
stay with my chair as a fact, because it is comfortable and without I would
have difficulties to write these comments... So I will not allow that somebody
confuses me and tries to take away the seat I am sitting on! No brainwash!
FF: This fact is relative
to personal opinion, because a physicist could say, "This object is mostly
space." A Hindu might say, "That object is an illusion. Call it what you
wish. It isn't real." [cut...]
BeiYin: The next 632
lines (!) I have deleted. It is just too much. Its about karma etc. Indeed
unbearable! There is just one quotation more which gives some practical
sense:
FF: Fritz Pearls, founder
of Gestalt Therapy, said that we can divide opinions into three groups.
He named them: 1. *Chicken Shit* (or, Small Talk - "Nice weather we're
having."), 2. *Bull Shit* (or, Important Issues - "The merits of his proposal
are valuable. The way that I see it. . . ."), and 3. *Elephant Shit* (or,
Cosmic Concerns - "We can express the essence of God like. . . ."). Mr.
Pearls implies that whatever we say, we're just talking.
BeiYin: I don't agree
and I don't think that's all right that any kind of expression is reduced
to
'just an opinion' and called 'shit', because *expressing*
ourselves is one of the most important possibilities *on the road* to communicate
with our fellow human beings, to get to know ourselves and to feel good
and alive. - - Do you remember the song Louis Armstrong used to sing: "...your
neighbor says 'How do you do...' and is saying by that: I love you...'
So, I personally prefer this kind of view!
C
o m m e n t :
BeiYin: There were used a lot of meaningful
words, high sophisticates expressions, in such an extent, that an average
person hardly could join up, so there were no comments given anymore and
so this round ends. I have my doubts after this discussion, if this has
any sense. A sense which can be useful for someone's life, for someone's
growing process, to open up oneself and to help to avoid traps. The subject:
'avoiding
traps' might have brought some light through the discussion. Did it
get clear, that 'concepts' might be useful as a help on someone's
path, but also that they might become a trap? The example I had taken how
a concept might turn into a trap: "THE TRUE BELIEVER, INTEGRITY AND TRUTH..."
seems to be pretty clear, but with the concept 'enlightenment' maybe
it is not. As long as someone can't proof a concept out of own experience,
there is no way to check out about its value for ones life. It can be taken
as a possible goal, which might be realized one day, but there is no other
way than just to believe in it. And that's something I can't support, in
no way! So I prefer to reject this kind of 'supreme concepts' for
my own personal use to support my life. And as a consequence I can't support
a discussion like this... Expressions might be honest and also the direct
outlet of experience and not just of a fantasy or imagination which is
manifested by turning itself into a concept. Even if there was an authentic
experience, then it had finally guided to a concept. For what purpose?
Does it help people to manage their life? To grow somehow? Does it give
tools to get to self-knowledgement? Does it help to understand oneself?
Or does it serve to give self confirmation to the one who has had the experience
and who is clinging on it and by having the concept and being identified
with it, getting out some confirmation? Such a person, owning a precious
concept, must look out for followers. First it might give enough satisfaction
to work on the concept, this might need many years, then it gives satisfaction
and confirmation to write and talk to other people to convince them of
the value... Do we have any proof, if a concept has a value for our life,
if we can't proof its authenticity? I thought about this many years ago
and I used a way, which probably has protected me of many traps: 'From
their fruits you will know them...' So what I do: I look at this person's
life. How this person has realized the concept in his/her own personal
life? Is this person a balanced human being, which is living his/her full
capacities? Or is it someone, who is hiding behind big words, sophisticated
phrases, which nobody can check out for its truth? Is it a loving person?
Or is it a person with crippled feelings who don't dare to show feelings
and is not able to receive the expression of feelings of another person?
Is this person more sensitive than an average person? I mean: Is this person
sensitive for the needs of other people or are the own needs the most important?
Does this person lives fully or at least partly integrated in our society
or somewhere in a dessert not being in danger to be confronted with other
people on a daily life level? If the concept has not enriched life of the
inventor of the concept, it will not serve for other human beings, that
means for me or for you. So better forget about it and go on just with
ones own limited concept of life... So let's look out for more practical
ways and avoid ideas which are too high up in the clouds.
A few years later: Obviously concepts
are so closely connected with one's personality who gets all feeling of
existence out of it, that there is no questioning possible and so no discussion
only confirmation for one's self image and stand points...
Similar topic: The
ultimate Concept